Search results

This is just a semantic issue related to the looseness of the definition. Naturally the agnostic label, if defined through non-belief, should only be applied to beings capable of belief in the first place. If it makes it tighter you could always replace 'lack of belief' (which, as you have...

This is a common misconception. The position which holds that it is impossible to know is simply one type of agnosticism. The common claim across different brands of agnosticism is that we don't know either way (not that it is impossible to know - a belief which characterises strong agnosticism).

We've visited this point time and time again in this thread but it's often worth another go. A hypothetical rule of reasoning which suggests that we accept the existence things for which we lack disconfirming evidence (even in the lack of confirming evidence) endorses belief in an infinite...

I don't think it's bad practice to say that science merely 'claims'. One of the great strengths of science is that it shies away from absolute claims and is open to revision if the right evidence comes along. Science doesn't say 'believe X because it is a fact', but rather says 'believe X...

On changing rates of mental illness - it's hard to say how it is changing because there is so much flux in the way we define mental illness (and also in the way we identify it - think of provision of services and changing taboos, e.g. regarding openness about depression in males). For example...

In which case I will resume the resident moral nihilist post.

Exactly, rights which are adjusted according to the consideration constant k.

You take the quote out of context. It is a more than reasonable claim in the context of empirical sciences such as animal biology (to which I believe the quote applies). A priori moral truths work differently. They are apparent to the inner senses (such as reason, which must be distinguished...

Yes, but you're neglecting the fact that you have to judge whether the proposition "modus ponens preserves validity" is true or false. That modus ponens is a valid argument structure is one of the background assumptions of our logic. Likewise, for our ethics we require some theoretical...

Would you ask for sources for the veracity of modus ponens? It's just the core moral framework which exists as a properly basic belief. If you have Mongol heritage then I understand why you might question The Hierarchy - genetically you won't have as much clarity when considering the moral realm...

Yes, according to the divine, aesthetic sense through which we appreciate the natural ordering of the animal kingdom.

We should base our ethics on the natural image of the animal kingdom. Lions, as rulers of the animal kingdom must be protected. But subordinate animals, like horses, negroes, and mongols may be bastardised in those cases where the benefit accorded the human party outweighs the degree of harm...

Medicine probably shouldn't be characterised as an easy way to achieve a high income, but it is certainly a reliable way. You can bank on breaking $100,000 by the time you have completed post-graduate training (~5 - 8 years after the medical degree) and $200,000 further down the track (much more...

True, in a 'new style' med course the science is pretty lax (less so for anatomy, physiology and pathology). But if you're a smart student who engages with the relevant literature and is capable of completing a PhD then you shouldn't have much trouble filling the gaps (an appropriate med sci...

The point wasn't to mock you so much as the question - it isn't open ended enough. You can't have a very good debate regarding the question 'Is the sky red or green?' because it seems to implicitly assume that it is one or the other when, in fact, it is neither, thus leading down a dead-end...

Is the sky red, or is it green?

Ditto. Really not funny.

Empirical data would suggest that this isn't entirely the case. Also, evolutionary history won't necessarily ensure that we hold common core values unless these values are truly innate. What I've read indicates that the 'innateness' debate has not yet been resolved (See Ch 7 'Is Morality Innate?').

You're not left with much (/anything) if you don't have the verb 'to be'.

God debates are generally a waste of time because they don't go hardcore enough (they are trying to make it accessible to a general audience after all). Unless you break it down to issues of epistemology, faith and justified belief I find that there is a tendency to rely on obfuscation and...